Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Desert1

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    23

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Desert1

  1. Posted · Edited by Desert1

    Well, have you tried standing up and running inside an APC in RL? In full combat gear? Offroad?

    I did, and even with it moving slowly, you are really cramped and glad that your helmet saves you all the bumps on your head you would get otherwise. With a backpack and some gear, you fit very snuggly and very very close to your comrades even if you are of lean build. Your knees are literally between the knees of the guy in front of you. Even getting inside it is a chore if its near full, in most such vehicles, there is no space to move inside at all unless crawling on the others.

    OTOH, opening doors in cars/IFVs/... would be pretty nice. As somebody else said, you could take cover behind them like in RL, and imagine that lucky RPG shot into open rear hatch of a BMP just as the opfor squad inside prepares to disembark... :)

    I don't know why but in A2 walking or running near other people in a close area tends to cause rubberbanding. This problem might be rectified in A3 but I don't know. That is the real problem with having people be able to control themselves getting out of an APC, they would rubberband like crazy in each other and slow down the process of getting into a fighting position, all the while both the APC and the troops are like sitting ducks to the enemy.

  2. Posted

    "Ethical" in the context of warfare means that it should not cause "inhuman" wounds and suffering, should not be indiscriminate by design (this is important) and not be used to cause mass civilian casualties in an instant or very short timeframe.

    However, warfare is not as clean as games make it out to be... I am repeating myself, but it bears repeating. People don´t just fall over like in Arma. There is lots of blood, screaming, bodily waste and shards of human beings involved. Incredible amounts of fear. If you watched the videos from Syria and Lybia (especially the Urban ones) you know what I am talking about.

    Arma is not designed to do this realistically. If it were, it would be the only Saving Private Ryan style Anti-War Shooter ever. War should not be glorified, like it is in COD, or even approached in a neutral fashion like with prior Armas.

    It should be a painful experience that should leave you sweating in your seat, with every emotion but joy or satisfaction.

    I agree, I watched a personal documentary the other day about the Russians in Georgia (1996), and they were extracting one of their friends from a destroyed T90 tank, and when they finally got to him, he was completely burnt through, his face was etched in a scream and his fingers were burnt into place. I realised then that war is not fun, pretty or good in anyway, but instead it is only done because it has to. Oh and they had to lift him out with wires because he was still slightly on fire and also because if they had pulled him to hard he would have fallen to pieces. If they did that in ARMA.. who knows what the reaction would be.

  3. Posted

    I always thought that 2035 was a risk for BI to take, for it was so far in the future, and this was what I saw coming, the technology would be almost nothing like what it is today, compare the BDU of the 1991 Gulf War with the ACU of today. Technology moves a very rapid pace and I think by setting the year at 2035, technology will have advanced further than BI might have put in the game.

  5. Posted

    you know i was thinking and i think it would be VERRRRRY interesting to have civilians in the game, and if they are then also introduce terrorists. if would be pretty insane if you clearing a village and find 4 civi's, you job to protect them but once then get behind you you discover one is a terrorist and blows up a portion of your squad

    wow powerful tactic there o_O I could see scripts being written where someone is scripted to be a suicide bomber (mp) and they are shown to look like a civilian, and do exactly what you just said there. That would be doing anything to win.

  6. Posted

    Nuclear bombs don't make land uninhabitable. Take Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example.

    agreed, only an explosion on the scale of a nuclear reactor (Chernobyl, Fukushima) that continues to burn and smoulder inside the core to this day, could contaminate land for decades.

  8. Posted

    Apparently though when they first used it it killed 20,000 troops instantly, I think gas is the most unethical thing possible, as even if you do survive, your life is pretty much ruined and you have to get treatment for the rest of your life. I suppose another unethical weapon would be the S-Mine (bouncing betty), it was never actually intended to kill people, but to maim and injure the unlucky chap. It was designed to maim mainly the genitals and lower legs to cause the most pain and to make the person immobile without others having to tend to them. Now if you ask me that is pretty scary, and that is probably something Iran would use as it is more of a sophisticated IED to a regular one. Use it ingame? Not unless you have some sort of gore mod or if BIS put gore into the game, which I don't think is very likely.

  10. Posted

    i would like to see/any type or make flamethrower

    no, not used nowadays, will never be used in the future either. I'd like to see the invisible panels that BAe are developing currently that can disguise a vehicles thermals to either disappear or give the impression of a different vehicle. In vehicle terms I would like to see the Mobarez tank make its way in for the Iranians, its used currently, same with the Zulfiqar tank. Add some depth to what the Iranians had before they took over Israel (in aa3)

  11. Posted

    I thought Iran had used nerve gas? And, common unethical weapons would be things like IEDs that have bags full of nails and other sharp, rusty objects in them. There is a large possibility that a civilian could step on one (if they are introduced into arma 3) or, get hit by stray shrapnel if they happen to be near one when it goes off.

  13. Posted

    I feel that it is very difficult for me to aquire targets with the current 'peephole' optics used in the MBT gunner position, I would much prefer an interior where I can use clickable buttons or screens to look at a wider view for the gunner, if this is of course accurate to real life specifications. Also, the Merkava tank was designed mainly for the comfort of the crew, and for the interior. It is even possible to stand completely up in a Merkava tank, so shouldn't a tank that was designed mainly on making the interior good, be fully modelled in game if you are planning to use it? However, aside from the extra hours needed to complete these interiors, getting references and information on the interiors of tanks is extremely difficult, and having a fully clickable interior is completely impossible due to the sensitive nature of some of a tank's optics and systems. So I'm kind of on the fence about the quality of the inside of a tank, as while it does make the user feel more in the tank, and opens up more functionality for positions such as the driver, gunner and commander, the idea is dragged back because of the time needed to complete these mammoth tasks and the research needed to fully complete them, which can also be time consuming or even possibly money consuming.

  14. Posted

    I agree with you on the reload animations and also on the muzzle flash, as the time setting (I think) is 2035 using the latest weapons which (guns being developed now) all have inbuilt flash hiders or suppressors of some sort so yes, I also think the muzzle flash should be reduced. But in fairness I also think they may have actually toned it up to show off that there is a new and dynamic type of (tbh) really cool looking muzzle flashes.

  17. Posted

    From the videos I've seen its usually an ISAF platoon vs 12 or less Taliban. Exceptions have been SF teams, where firefights are usually much more even, like 10 vs 5.

    It very much depends, in Mazdurak (UK forces tasked with taking) and Marjah (US forces tasked with taking) the Taliban outnumbered the ISAF forces by quite a bit, especially in Mazdurak; that's where I got the 70 Taliban from. Same with 'The Seige of Musa Qala' where ISAF forces were heavily outnumbered by (looking at the charts of the estimated amount of dead) at least 30. But as I said it varies on terrain, time of day, and many other factors. But the fact that in A2 the AI are bone-dead stupid means they have to put a large force against a small one. Even someone of 'limited' capabilities could defeat a fairly large force of Taki troops.

  19. Posted

    So I was wondering, will ARMA 3 have simple GUIs such as the mission editor, soldier editor, map maker, and model maker all have simple GUIs? While there are some good sides to having this the downsides to this are that it would take a very long time to develop these GUIs and there would be a constant flow of threads saying 'look I made this awesome mission where you have lots of aircraft and tanks and stuff and lots of enemy infantry who have the brains of a fish that you can go and kill!' Except they have a map the size of the earth and all the textures are some pre-fabricated ones made by someone else. This would most likely be the case and if so, it would drown out the really good maps/missions and models that would exist within the never ending 'talented' people. So; do you think ARMA 3 will have simple GUIs and do you think it would be a good idea to have them?

  22. Posted

    Of course, though the Germans never made it at all a standard battle tank.

    My point about the Merkava is that the Israelis build the Merkava to be very centered on the survival of the crew rather than the survival of the vehicle. Israel does not have a large body of available troops, so it cannot take strategic losses in a time of war. One design feature that supports this on the Merkava is the placement of the engine at the front. The main function of this is to add another object that a penetrating round must go through. As a result, you have the thicker front armor backed by an engine, which makes the crew safer, though a frontal penetration will kill the tank by knocking out the engine. Because there is thick frontal armor in the way, as well, it is very difficult to access the engine for maintenance, one of the problems with modern composite armor and one of the reasons the rear hull of most any MBT is protected by next to no armor. Because of this, there is an access hatch of some sort located I think on the lower left front hull, which is a weak point on the armor. Again, this does not concern the Israelis as much as the potential loss of the crew, as tanks can be replaced, but men not so easily.

    I just think, based on indigenous tanks already designed and produced in Iran proper, for instance the Zulfiqar, would have specifically Iranian interests in mind, one of those, especially with a large Iranian "empire in Arma 3, would definitely not be manpower.

    If you look at the map then it does say that the Iranians have captured and occupied all the way up to Greece, so they will most likely have used the captured army's tanks as part of their reserve ...

  23. Posted

    amm, actually "real life" photo of the infamous Mi-48 "Kajman" is not authentic. That's just Mi-28. Sure, devs have taken lot of stuff from it, but i think description need to be corrected. For great justice, you know...

    I agree, you see that on the gun the Kajman has a triple barrelled gun, whereas the MI-4(2)8 "supposed" real picture has a single barrel gun with a buffer on the front. Which the MI-28 has.

×